You're going to have to show me the part in the definition of objectivity where things are graded on a point for point system.Sarge034 said:The hammer is easy while the writing utensil not so much. Claw hammer and pen. A ballpeen hammer is highly specialized to do two jobs while a claw hammer is designed to do a minimum of three while also being capable of completing the ballpeen's jobs as well. Pen just barely edged out pencil due to the tip not breaking and requiring sharpening.Abomination said:Then fine, what is objectively the better hammer or the better writing instrument in those situations?
Finally you provide some counterpoints. However we are back to you using the wrong terminology. Seriously, look it up. Objective = factSo it's objectively better in those areas... that doesn't mean it's objectively better. What about cost? Wear and tear? Transit time? Fuel costs? Lack of stock when purchasing? General convenience? No need of physical storage? Automatic categorizing? Non-physical DRM?
You see, all of your advantages I can identify as advantages but subjectively they mean nothing to me. So while they might be an objective points in its favour the value of some of those points is 0 to an individual. I recognize this can happen for the objective advantages of digital media as well. That is why I would never make the claim that digital media is objectively better than physical media... even though I prefer digital media over physical media as it suits my situation far better.
To me the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages it has over its rival.
Subjective = feelings
The way you feel about an objective point is irrelevant, because you are trying to make it a subjective point.
So let's start a list then.
Objective points
-longevity----------------------------Physical
-ownership----------------------------Physical
-hard drive space---------------------Physical
-accesses without internet------------Physical
-accesses with internet---------------Both
-easiest on bandwidth restrictions----Physical
-barrowing/trading allowed------------Physical
-cost---------------------------------Tie (usually comparable price with tax applied to both, also anomalies high/low for both)
-wear and tear-------------Both (vehicle wear sustained for physical or console/modem/router wear sustained for digital)
-transit time-------------------------Digital
-download time------------------------Physical
-fuel costs---------------------------Digital
-electricity cost---------------------Physical
-lack of stock when purchasing--------Digital
-servers down when downloading--------Physical
-general convenience--------------------------------XXXXXXXSUBJECTIVE POINTXXXXXXX
-no need of physical storage----------Neither (hard drive or shelf space, both require physical storage)
-automatic categorizing--------(console) Neither (I have to find my digital games like I do physical copies, by looking)
-non-physical DRM---------------------Both
Now admittedly, this is not a full list, but so far it looks like...
Physical- 9
Digital- 3
Both- 3
Neither- 2
Tie- 1
As of now OBJECTIVLY physical copies are winning. SUBJECTIVLY you still like digital and I still like physical.
Because honestly this is ridiculous. Especially you stating that a digital copy needs physical storage. But your subjective opinion that a physical copy is objectively better than digital copies will continue to amuse.
Good luck with this... and your terrible misunderstanding as to how objectivity and subjectivity operate.